Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSHamilton/Archive

29 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I believe the two accounts have very similar contribution histories. Until today they have mainly focused on issues relating to electrical equipment, but have now started editing both the Scottish independence and Scottish independence referendum, 2014 pages in similar fashion. First of all, ElectricTattiebogle added content to both articles relating to a letter written by an EU commissioner. I then edited each page substantially because I was dissatisfied that certain aspects were being given undue weight, mainly because of excessive quoting of source material. My edits were reverted by both accounts. I then posted comments on the talk page of each article explaining my edits. These were responded to by SS Hamilton, then supported by ElectricTattiebogle to give the appearance of "consensus". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Mmm, new editor appears on the scene in an attempt to edit war SSHamilton's changes into the article, then SSHamilton makes a false edit warring report trying to get Jmorrison230582 blocked. None too subtle and fairly blatant sock puppetry or meat puppetry. The duck is strong with this one. WCM email 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It also appears both editors responses are very similar in style. Blethering  Scot  19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * An IP which had not previously edited WP before, added this comment to Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I seem to hear a quacking sound around this set of editors. A CU would be interesting. --John (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Looks to be enough evidence to check the two accounts. I don't think this is a DUCK case so CU is needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, , and are all ✅ as .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After checking some of the user talk pages and looking at past warnings I recommend that all these accounts be indeffed. The 3RR block of ElectricTattiebogle was per a May 1st AN3 case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur, it looks like Deucharman has been a problematic editor for years. They've just been blanking their talk page any time someone gives them a warning. The disruption using these sockpuppets has been especially problematic, so I'm going to implement an indefinite block on each of these editors. With Deucharman as the oldest account (by a number of years) I'm identifying them as the sockmaster and I've changed that above for archival purposes. --  At am a  頭 19:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)